Peter Chivay

1 hour ago, Aeldrin said:

His Exalted Grace John I Louis of the House d’Amaury, the Archduke of Lorraine, Duke of Savoy and Kaedrin,

"youre really asking for me to butt blast you, arent you" says ser tom the old

seventis was a week long 'kingdom' made up of tents

Peter Chivay's ghost smiles the sun's smile 

tom signs 

filthy raev scum

godspeed J man

"Bravo!" Says a random man in the crowd. 

he has the full support of rosenberg co

oh yaaa +1

get big muscles !

build the wall

yeah sure

does anyone in this thread actually lift weights 

My gaming computer **** out on me so I'm basically never going to be returning to computer gaming

You can move this to denied

sprinkled a little bit too many commas in there bud

On 5/18/2016 at 2:26 AM, cyber_king3 said:

I just noticed the other day you haven't been online in eight months. Why apply for GM if you don't RP on the server anymore? Unless you've logged in the past few days and I haven't seen it.

College my man.

its okay

Really nice to see someone taking Orc RP and

seriously. 

Though I would suggest you find people who have a very similar mindset as you and help rebuild the Orc race to something that can be taken seriously. You can't do everything yourself, and although posts like these are great, you got a lot of work ahead of you thats gonna need some delegation.

REMOVE

OREN

PATRIARCHY

-1

20 hours ago, xDK said:

Alright, I'm gonna just go over why this Survey is the most ******* ridiculous thing, that it just flabbergasted me completely. Now bare with me, I am not writing this because I dislike Surveys, but this is just.... NO.

 

Defender Default

Surprisingly, a larger majority showed positive support for defender default than expected as you can see above. Only about 15% of the server disapproves of it now, so I think its safe to say that this system is a success and we’ll be using it for the foreseeable future.

 

To improve the system the most consistent open response questions essentially called for the staff to specify what exactly a defender is, to take out the vagueness in some situations.

 

Lets start with this then. "Surprisingly, a larger majority showed positive support for defender default". First of... The question was, 'Do you agree with the IMPLEMENTATION of defender default', not 'Do you support defender default', and true, defender default is indeed a nice middleground for the server, as a way to make everyone happy, but that was not the question..

 

Raid Rules

I honestly was surprised about this one. Our community is notoriously opinionated about raiding and raid-related topics, in one form or another. However, the majority of respondents were simply unopinionated towards them.  

As it stands, those who dislike the raid rules form a slightly, but still notably larger segment that those who approve of it. I will bring this up at the next staff meeting.

 

Now this one... Oh boy... Essentially, I want you to see the "I have no opinion of them" as either, "I don't give a ****" or "I don't know them" or "I don't give a **** to know them". Perhaps it is due to the large amount of players, (especially new ones) who doesn't have a group to play with, or a nation to join, or people to go raid with. I think you need to reevaluate what the actual problem is.

 

The LOTC Economy

The playerbase concurs with the staff on this one, in that trying to stimulate the importance of the mina and create a more realistic economy is fairly important for the health of the server. Supporting comments praised the immersion, healthy competition and etc that comes out of it.

 

Suggestions to improve the economy are too diverse to summarize. Though a recurring comment was that nations should be in charge of their own economies moreso than through staff intervention.

 

Yeah... Nice question... It's like asking someone "How important to you is it that Orange juice remains orange?". There's litterally nothing that you can draw from this. It would have been different if you would have given 4-5 subjects, and then had people priorities them in order. However this, i don't know how your gonna draw any context whatsoever.

 

* I don't even want to go into the Nexus Plugin, that's for a serperate thread *

 

Player/Staff Relations

Once again, I wasn’t expecting such a large chunk of people to answer with no opinion. Everyone in this community seems to have some viewpoint on this topic, but if anything, this poll teaches us a lesson about the power of a vocal minority.

 

When asked how relations could be improved, most of you responded with something along the lines of more transparency, more communication and more say for the regular player before big changes in the server.

 

This one is probably the most fun one, and I would like to go back to the beginning where you litterally proves the point that the staff is so disconnected from the community that they even get surprised by their own flippin' surveys... Like what the ****... I think most of the players who answered this survey, doesn't have the "GM to Nations buddy buddy relations" that most 'veteran' players does. They don't know what relation there /is/ to take into consideration..

 

The rest of the survey is just a bunch of numbers that you manage to vaguely describe.. What conclusions the moderation team may come up with.. I have no clue, and honestly, this is just... ARGH! So disconnected from everything that is happening..

you basically outlined everything i was gonna outline but i was too lazy to do but yea see this guy gets it 

2 hours ago, 吳憾戰士14 said:

When its possible to get deeper info, you go for it.

 

Simplest way I can put it is this.

 

You can simplify detailed data to be easier to read.

You can't expand on un-detailed data to be more insightful.

 

So, theres nothing to lose by giving people more choices in metric questions.

 

I disagree with your method for a lot of things that i'm honestly too lazy to type out and don't really care to so i'm just gonna leave it at that

3 hours ago, Telanir said:

 

I disagree, not everything is white and black and 'good/bad'. People are making true choices, we can see approximately how strongly people believe in a certain principle. There is a lot to be learned from the gravity of your conviction on a certain issue. I agree that 1-10 is too broad, it should be a 1-5 list instead (nobody is familiar with a 1-7 scale) as the key here is finding the critical balance of giving enough choice while not diluting it with unnecessary numbers.

 

When you talk about highly contested results or controversial topics that get even spreads that indicates to us as a staff that we should investigate a certain topic further rather than put our hands up. If we cannot get clear results from the polls then we look to the text response or request additional input at a later date. These polls are at the very least mildly insightful and should continue.

 

You're doing a good job Leo, as a tl;dr I do support the notion of a 1-5 staff ranking.

(Sorry for double post idk how to edit in a quote)

I whole heartedly agree that everything is not black and white, good/bad, however I think the surveys should be made that way (I thought thats what you guys were trying to get out of them).

Glad you agree with the 1-5 scale though.

2 hours ago, 吳憾戰士14 said:

Well as I was taught (major in market research) to always include options between 'highly important' and 'important', etc. For a more detailed analysis, the option to read between the hierarchy is there. However, if you wish you summarize, you can simply add up all the respondents from the bottom and top halfs of the spectrum.

 

For multiple choice questions, we can simply add up all the 'strongly agrees' and 'agrees' and put it under the general 'approval' pile, and for the scale questions, adding up all the 1-4s and 6-10s gives us the total percentage of people who approve and disapprove.

 

By just adding up, The end result is the same as if we'd provided respondents less options to reply with. But this way, we can choose to summarize, or we can choose to go into more detail. We keep our options open, so its a win-win.

But why bother doing all that extra work in the first place when you can just put approve/disapprove, agree/disagree? I was talking about efficiency, not detail. Two very different concepts. 

You guys really (and I mean desperately) need to make these surveys more efficient and less arbitrary.  This is an absolute nightmare from a management point of view. How can you expect to fix problems when you're getting even spreads like 32-28-27 percent on all your graphs? 

Remove things like 'Strongly' and 'Highly' and let people make true choices about what they think is good or bad, you're giving too much lee-way and thats what makes this way too inefficient. I know there are probably people who are on the fence about liking things but thats the beauty off it- actual thought!

Have a minimalist mindset and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to get a general idea of what the community wants through these things.

Also, given the sample size, restrict it from 1-10 down to either 1-5 or 1-7, you'll get a much more accurate representation of how the community feels about the various teams that way, rather than 100 votes being spread across a ten point scale.